A Catholic speaker and author who regularly prays the rosary outside an abortion clinic in Philadelphia was charged Friday with physically assaulting a Planned Parenthood clinic escort last year.
Mark Houck, 48, of Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, is the co-founder and president of the Catholic ministry The King’s Men, which aims to give spiritual formation to Catholic men.
News of Houck’s arrest on Friday morning was widely shared on social media after another well-known Catholic speaker, Chris Stefanick, posted about it online. Houck’s wife, Ryan-Marie Houck, told CNA about the arrest Friday.
“A SWAT team of about 25 came to my house with about 15 vehicles and started pounding on our door,” Ryan-Marie Houck said. “They said they were going to break in if he didn’t open it. And then they had about five guns pointed at my husband, myself, and basically at my kids,” she added.
She said that multiple agencies were present at the arrest and that she was handed a warrant after she requested to see it.
The FBI confirmed to CNA Friday that Houck was arrested outside his residence Friday morning “without incident.” In a press release, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said that Houck is being charged with a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, more commonly referred to as the FACE Act.
The federal indictment says that Houck twice assaulted a 72-year-old man who was a patient escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic at 1144 Locust St. in Philadelphia on Oct. 13, 2021. First, Houck shoved the escort, identified only with the initials B.L., to the ground as B.L was attempting to escort two patients, the indictment says. Houck also “verbally confronted” and “forcefully shoved” B.L. to the ground in front of Planned Parenthood the same day, the indictment says. The indictment says that B.L. was injured and needed medical attention.
If he is convicted, Houck could face up to 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $350,000, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.
The FACE Act “prohibits violent, threatening, damaging and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain or provide reproductive health services,” according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Violating the FACE Act is a federal crime and protects “all patients, providers, and facilities that provide reproductive health services, including pro-life pregnancy counseling services and any other pregnancy support facility providing reproductive health care,” according to the DOJ.
Ryan-Marie Houck told CNA that her husband prays the rosary outside one of two different Planned Parenthood’s every Wednesday and hands out literature to anyone who wants it. She said that praying outside the clinic is part of The King’s Men ministry.
“This was a gross over-reach from the ‘justice’ department with excessive use of force and trumped up allegations and our story needs to be told truthfully,” Ryan-Marie Houck said in a text. “These are false allegations.”
She said that he had his first appearance before a judge and was subsequently released on Friday. Her husband declined to comment, she said.
In a statement Jacqueline Romero, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said that there is no tolerance for violating the FACE Act.
“Assault is always a serious offense, and under the FACE Act, if the victim is targeted because of their association with a reproductive healthcare clinic, it is a federal crime,” she said in the press release.
“Our Office and the Department of Justice are committed to prosecuting crimes which threaten the safety and rights of all individuals,” she added.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Maureen McKinley milks one of her family’s goats in their backyard with help from three of her children, Madeline (behind), Fiona and Augustine on Monday, Aug. 2, 2021. McKinley and her family own two goats, chickens, a rabbit, and a dog. / Jake Kelly
Denver Newsroom, Aug 10, 2021 / 16:32 pm (CNA).
With five children ages 10 and under to care for, and a pair of goats, a rabbit, chickens and a dog to tend to, Maureen and Matt McKinley rely on a structured routine to keep their busy lives on track.
Chores, nap times, scheduled story hours – they’re all important staples of their day. But the center of the McKinleys’ routine, what focuses their family life and strengthens their Catholic faith, they say, is the Traditional Latin Mass.
Its beauty, reverence, and timelessness connect them to a rich liturgical legacy that dates back centuries.
“This is the Mass that made so many saints throughout time,” observes Maureen, 36, a parishioner at Mater Misericordiæ Catholic Church in Phoenix.
“You know what Mass St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Therese, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Augustine were attending? The Traditional Latin Mass,” Maureen says.
“We could have a conversation about it, and we would have all experienced the exact same thing,” she says. “That’s exciting.”
Recent developments in the Catholic Church, however, have curbed some of that excitement. On July 16, Pope Francis released a motu proprio titled Traditiones custodis, or “Guardians of the Tradition”, that has cast doubt on the future of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) – and deeply upset and confused many of its devotees.
Pope Francis’ directive rescinds the freedom Pope Benedict XVI granted to priests 14 years ago to say Masses using the Roman Missal of 1962, the form of liturgy prior to Vatican II, without first seeking their bishop’s approval. Under the new rules, bishops now have the “exclusive competence” to decide where, when, and whether the TLM can be said in their dioceses.
In a letter accompanying the motu proprio, Pope Francis maintains that the faculties granted to priests by his predecessor have been “exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.”
Using the word “unity” a total of 15 times in the accompanying letter, the pope suggests that attending the TLM is anything but unifying, going so far as to correlate a strong personal preference for such masses with a rejection of Vatican II.
Weeks later, many admirers of the “extraordinary” form of the Roman rite – the McKinleys among them – are still struggling to wrap their minds and hearts around the pope’s order, and the pointed tone he used to deliver it.
Maureen McKinley says she had never considered herself a “traditionalist Catholic” before. Instead, she says she and her husband have just “always moved toward the most reverent way to worship and the best way to teach our children.”
“It didn’t feel like I became a particular type of Catholic by going to Mater Misericordiæ. But since the motu proprio came out, I feel like I have been categorized, like I was something different, something other than the rest of the Church,” she says.
“It feels like our Holy Father doesn’t understand this whole group of people who love our Lord so much.”
McKinley isn’t alone in feeling this way. Sadness, anger, frustration, and disbelief are some common themes in conversations among those who regularly attend the TLM.
They want to understand and support the Holy Father, but they also see the restriction as unnecessary, especially when plenty of other more pressing issues in the Church abound.
Eric Matthews, another Mater Misericordiæ parishioner, views the new restrictions as an “attack on devout Catholic culture,” citing the beauty that exists across the rites recognized within the Church. There are seven rites recognized in the Catholic Church: Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean.
“It’s the same Mass,” says Matthews, 39, who first discovered the TLM about eight years ago. “It’s just different languages, different cultures, but the people that you have there are there for the right reasons.”
Eric and Geneva Matthews with their four children. / Narissa Lowicki
Different paths to the TLM
The pope’s motu proprio directly affects a tiny fraction of U.S. Catholics – perhaps as few as 150,000, or less than 1 percent of some 21 million regular Mass-goers, according to some estimates. According to one crowd-sourced database, only about 700 venues – compared to over 16,700 parishes nationwide – offer the TLM.
Also, since the motu proprio’s release July 16, only a handful of bishops have stopped the TLM in their dioceses. Of those bishops who have made public responses, most are allowing the Masses to continue as before – in some cases because they see no evidence of disunity, and in others because they need more time to study the issue.
But for those who feel drawn to the TLM – for differing reasons that have nothing to do with a rejection of Vatican II – it feels as if the ground has shifted under their feet.
Maureen McKinley wants her children to understand the importance of hard work, of which they have no shortage when it comes to their urban farm. After morning prayer, Maureen milks the family’s goats with the help of the children. Madeline (age 10) feeds the bunny; Augustine (7) exercises the dog; John (6) checks for eggs from the chickens; and Michael (4) helps anyone he chooses.
With a noisy clatter in the kitchen, the McKinleys eat breakfast, tidy up their rooms, and begin their daily activities. They break at 11 a.m. to head to daily Mass at Mater Misericordiæ, an apostolate of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP), where they first attended two years ago.
Matt, 34, wanted to know how the early Christians worshipped.
“The funny thing about converts is they’re always wanting more,” says Maureen, who was, at first, a little resistant to the idea of attending the TLM because she didn’t know Latin. “Worship was a big part of his conversion.”
Maureen agreed to follow her husband’s lead, and they continued to attend the TLM. What kept them coming back week after week was the reverence for the Eucharist.
“Matt had a really hard time watching so many people receive communion in the hand at the other parish,” says Maureen. “He says he didn’t want our kids to think that that was the standard. That’s the exception to the rule, not the rule.”
Reverence in worship also drew Elizabeth Sisk to the TLM. A 28-year-old post-anesthesia care unit nurse, she attends both the Novus Ordo, the Mass promulgated by St. Paul VI in 1969, and the extraordinary form in Raleigh, North Carolina, where her parish, the Holy Name of Jesus Cathedral, offers the TLM on the first Sunday of the month.
Sisk has noticed recently that more people in her area — especially young people who are converts to Catholicism — are attending both forms of the Mass. While the Novus Ordo is what brought many of them, herself included, to the faith, she feels that the extraordinary form invites them to go deeper.
“We want to do something radical with our lives,” Sisk says. “To be Catholic right now as a young person is a really radical decision. I think the people who choose to be Catholic right now, we’re all in. We don’t want ‘watered-down’ Catholicism.”
Elizabeth Sisk stands in front of Holy Name of Jesus Cathedral in Raleigh, North Carolina.
With the lack of Christian values in the world today, Sisk desires “something greater,” which she says she can tell is happening in the TLM.
Many TLM parishes saw an increase in attendance during the pandemic, as they were often the only churches open while many others shut their doors or held Masses outside. This struck some as controversial, if not disobedient to the local government. For others, it was a saving grace to have access to the sacraments.
The priests at Erin Hanson’s parish obtained permission from the local bishop to celebrate Mass all day, every day, with 10 parishioners at a time during the height of the COVID pandemic.
“We were being told by the world that church is not necessary,” says Hanson, a 39-year-old mother of three. “Our priest says, ‘No, that’s a lie. Our church is essential. Our salvation is essential. The sacraments are essential.’”
Andy Stevens, 52, came into the Church through the TLM, much to the surprise of his wife, Emma, who had been a practicing Catholic for many years. Andy was “very adamantly not going to become Catholic,” but was happy to help Emma with their children at Mass. It wasn’t until they attended a TLM that Andy began to think differently about the Church.
“He believed that you die and then there is nothing, and he never really spoke to me about becoming a Catholic,” says Emma, 48, who was pregnant with their seventh child at the time.
Andy noticed an intense focus among the worshippers, which he recognized as a “real presence of God” that he didn’t see anywhere else. After the birth of their 7th child, he joined the Church.
All 12 of the Stevens’ children prefer the TLM to the Novus Ordo.
Emma and Andy Stevens with their 12 children in Oxford, England.
“It’s a Mass of the ages,” says their eldest son, Ryan, 27. “I can feel the veil between heaven and earth palpably thinner.”
A native of Chicago, Adriel Gonzalez, 33, remembers attending the TLM as a child, which he did not particularly like. It was “very long, very boring,” and the people who went to the TLM were “very stiff and they could come off as judgmental” towards his family, he says.
Gonzalez, who also attended Mass in Spanish with his family, didn’t understand the differences among rites, since Chicago was a sort of “salad bowl, ethnically,” he says, and Mass was celebrated in many languages and forms.
He took a step back from faith for some time, he says, noting that he had a “respectability issue” with the Christianity he grew up with. He watched as some of his friends were either thoughtless in the way they practiced their faith, or were “on fire,” but lacked intentionality. When he did come back to the faith, it was through learning about the Church’s intellectual tradition.
He spent time in monasteries and Eastern Catholic parishes with the Divine Liturgy because there was “something so obviously ancient about it.” He decided to stay within the Roman rite with a preference for a reverent Novus Ordo.
When he moved to Ann Arbor, Michigan, Gonzalez committed to his neighborhood parish, which had a strong contingent of people who loved tradition in general. The parish instituted a TLM in the fall of 2020, when they started having Mass indoors again after the pandemic.
Hallie and Adriel Gonzalez.
“If I’m at a Latin Mass, I’m more likely to get a sense that this is a time-honored practice, something that has been honed over the millennia,” he says. “There is clearly a love affair going on here with the Lord that requires this much more elaborate song and dance.”
For Eric Matthews, the TLM feels a little like time travel.
“It could be medieval times, it could be the enlightenment period, it could be the early 1900s, and the experience is going to be so similar,” he says.
“I just feel like that’s that universal timeframe – not just the universal Church in 2021 – but the universal Church in almost any time period. We’re the only church that can claim that.”
What happens now?
The motu proprio caught Adriel Gonzalez’ attention. He sought clarity about whether his participation in the extraordinary form was, in fact, part of a divisive movement, or simply an expression of his faith.
If it was a movement, he wanted no part of it, he says.
“As far as I can tell, the Church considers the extraordinary form and the ordinary form equal and valid,” says Gonzalez. “Ideally, there should be no true difference between going to one or the other, outside of just preference. It shouldn’t constitute a completely different reality within Catholicism.”
With this understanding, Gonzalez says he resonated with some of the reasoning set forth in the motu proprio because it articulated that the celebration of the TLM was never intended to be a movement away from the Novus Ordo or Vatican II. Gonzalez also emphasized that the extraordinary form was never supposed to be a “superior” way of celebrating the Mass.
Gonzalez believes the Lord allowed the growth in the TLM “to help us to recover a love for liturgy, and to ask questions about what worship and liturgy looks like.” He would have preferred if what was good was kept and encouraged, and what was potentially dangerous “coaxed out and called out.”
Mater Misericordæ Catholic Church in Phoenix, Arizona. / Viet Truong
Erin Hanson, of Mater Misericordiæ, agrees.
“If [Pope Francis] does believe there is division between Novus Ordo and traditional Catholics, I don’t think he did anything to try to fix that division,” she says.
Hanson would like to know who the bishops are that Pope Francis consulted in making this decision, sharing that she doesn’t feel that there is any of the transparency needed for such a major document. If there are divisions, she says, she would like the opportunity to work on them in a different way.
“This isn’t going to be any less divisive if he causes a possible schism,” Hanson says.
According to the motu proprio and the accompanying letter, the TLM is not to be celebrated in diocesan churches or in new churches constructed for the purpose of the TLM, nor should new groups be established by the bishops. Left out of their parish churches, some are worried their only option to attend Mass will be in a recreation center or hotel ballroom.
Eric Matthews hopes that everyone is able to experience the extraordinary form at least once in their life so they can know that this is not about division.
“I can’t imagine someone going to the Latin Mass and saying, ‘This is creating disunity,’” he says. “There’s nothing to be afraid of with the Latin Mass. You’re just going to be surrounding yourself with people that really take it to heart.”
Maureen McKinley was home sick when her husband Matt found out about the motu proprio. He had taken the kids to a neighborhood park, where he ran into some friends who also attend Mater Misericordiæ. They asked if he had heard the news.
“I felt disgust at a document that pretends to say so much while actually saying so little and disregards the Church’s very long and rich tradition of careful legal documents,” Matt McKinley says.
Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix stated that the TLM may continue at Mater Misericordiæ, as well as in chapels, oratories, mission churches, non-parochial churches, and at seven other parishes in the diocese. Participation in the TLM and all of the activities of the parish are so important to the McKinleys that they are willing to move to another state or city should further restrictions be implemented.
For now, their family’s routine continues the same as before.
At the end of their day, the McKinleys pray a family rosary in front of their home altar, which has a Bible at the center, and an icon of Christ and a statue of the Virgin Mary. They eat dinner together, milk the goat again, and take care of their evening animal chores. After night prayer, the kids head off to bed, blessing themselves with holy water from the fonts mounted on the wall before they enter their bedroom.
“The life of the Church springs from this Mass,” Maureen says. “That’s why we’re here—not because the Latin Mass is archaic, but that it’s actually just so alive.”
Washington D.C., Nov 28, 2018 / 05:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a letter last week urging the Senate to pass the bipartisan First Step Act, which aims to “improve the lives of thousands of peop… […]
Washington D.C., Jan 22, 2018 / 05:04 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Thousands gathered in Los Angeles on Saturday for a rally and march supporting the dignity of every human life and proclaiming that every human person is “made for greater.”
How would this be different from prolife folks being accosted?
Years ago I was praying with members of our church outide a clinic that performed feticides and a man repeatedly threatened us with a large pair of scissors. He would come right up close to us and make stabbing motions. The police said because he didn’t actually stab us there was nothing they could do.
From what you have set forth, the man is guilty of an assault that is against the law, so the police either directly lied to you (likely) or were ignorant of the law (unlikely). In basic legalese, one definition of assault is a seriously threatening action to do unjust physical harm to another, such as in your circumstances. Battery is the actual physical act of unjustly harming another. In common everyday language, the word ‘assault’ is used for physical attacks on people, and so the legal distinction between assault and battery is unknown to many, but not to the police. Perhaps the police deemed that their presence was enough to prevent further incident, but if so, this does not excuse them from wrongly advising you that they could not intervene when anyone is confronted by a legally defined assault against them.
Supplement to my response to mrscracker: in some states, battery is simply included in various kinds of assaults such as ‘simple assault’ and ‘aggravated assault’ without a separate offense known as battery.
Nevertheless, the threat to do bodily harm is indeed an actionable assault in all states if it can be inferred from the manner of the threat that a person or persons so threatened reasonably fear for their bodily safety.
Thank you for sharing that Doc. It happened over 3 decades agi and I remember going to court later as a witness but nothing came of it. I believe civil charges had been filed against the man with the scissors.
It was really disturbing because I had a baby in a stroller when we’d been threatened that way.
Such an upside down world we live in. As I see it the praying man was confronting three people, two mothers ready to murder their children as well as the escort who was their accompanying accomplice. The praying man attempts to stop the murder only to be arrested and threatened to jail, parole and fine. To be objective, the article did not mention if there were other witnesses to prove either way. Since he was released by the judge and declines to comment it is further unclear. Sounds like the judge may have not had enough evidence to prove him guilty since he released him which makes me think that the abortion folks may have lied.
As I understand it, the PP escort repeatedly verbally accosted Houck’s minor son. Also, Houck was never charged by police and the escort never showed at the civil trial. Looks like a non-issue until someone decided to go federal with it. And what a criminal show of force from the FEDS.
You have a lot of incorrect information. Take this as somebody very familiar with the case. Unprovoked attack, nothing to do with his son. Don’t want to say more at the time, except you have bad information.
You have false information. No communication at all about son. Volunteer was just trying to escort women in the building. Also wrong about the trial information. Get better sources. Lots more I could say since I know all the details of the case, but the now 73 year old man doesn’t need to be assaulted again, so please stop spreading false information and victim shaming.
Okay, Bob. Why can’t you say more? Looks like a cop-out. You wouldn’t actually be the “escort” (BL), would you?
In any case, since Mr. Houck has been doing his peaceful protests for years without incident, why should we believe your story that he was not provoked, and that it did not involve his son? According to you, Houck simply lost his cool for the first time and decided to attack a 73-year-old man. Also, what does the age of the “escort” have to do with anything, and how do you know how hold he (or perhaps you) are? Did Mr. Houck know the “escort’s” age, and that’s another reason why you claim he shoved him? Or are you trying to drum up bogus sympathy for such an “escort” because of his age?
Sorry, Bob. If you can’t elaborate on your remarks with supporting evidence or you simply choose not to do so, your assurances of knowing more about the case is just hearsay on your part that nobody should accept based only on your unconvincing “I know more than you, but I won’t say what” about the case.
By the way, was the case thrown out or dismissed in a civil court? If so, why did this occur if your claims are correct?
If you really had information about what happened instead of only denying what has been reported you could inform us. You are essentially claiming it was an unprovoked attack. But what is your source for that?
Even if I took your word for it that “Lots more I could say since I know all the details of the case,” and I don’t, it wouldn’t matter. It could not justify an early-morning armed raid by a couple dozen agents, screaming and pounding at the door.
How is it that a man who was in a small shoving match could get ten years in prison when those who are murdering people and doing drug deals that kill people on the streets of N.Y, Chicago and in California are all being let back out on to the streets? This is insanity. You only get out if you are a danger to society and are left in prison if you try to defend the unborn. It won’t be long before the Warning comes.
It’s not a shoving match when one person shoves another to the ground while the other doesn’t lay a finger on them. It’s an assault, and given where the assault happened and under the circumstances, it is a more serious offense. Mark should have kept his hands to himself.
Again, Bob, your writing suggests that you may indeed be the ghoulish “escort” identified as BL. You write not as a witness, but one directly involved. For instance, the following are a bit peculiar in your comments spread over a couple of posts:
Bob: “the now 73 year old man doesn’t need….”
Who would emphasize a person’s age change if not the person himself? If you were merely a witness, you would only refer to his age at the time of the incident, which was apparently 72.
A witness probably wouldn’t mention the possible future impact of a rhetorical assault on another person, but a person whining about such being possibly visited upon himself would write in this manner…just as you have done.
And a witness probably wouldn’t write that “Mark should have kept his hands to himself,” but a person shoved by Mr. Houck would write in this manner.
Also, what’s with the first name basis?
Since you work/volunteer for your fellow ghouls of Planned Parenthood, I suspect that Mr. Houck has been known and detested by you et al., and so this whole thing smacks of a set-up on your part with the help of the compliant DOJ to try to stop Mr. Houck from saving lives that you enjoy helping others murder.
Lastly, the cry of “victim shaming” also suggests you are upset with being called out as a ghoul who helps women murder their babies. Anyone who helps a woman murder her unborn child brings shame upon themselves regardless of whether or not they are called out for their shameful behavior.
That’s correct. Regardless of the specifics, if you take a 20,000 foot view of the situation you see the clear discrepancy in the way justice is carried out. Even if the defendant is guilty of assault and wasn’t defending his son, he could’ve been picked up without incident by his local Sheriff’s Dept. Instead, he and his family were SWATted. I mean, you’d swear it was Summer 2020 and the Houcks were in the act of assaulting folks, looting, and burning down buildings or something (hypothetically of course) the way the police made contact with them. Regardless of assault vs self defense) then the way he was apprehended wasn’t about him and the level of risk he posed. No, it was a show of force for the rest of us.
… and we should accept your “account of events” at face value? I guess this is another of those anonymous sources named “Bob”. Keep in mind that if you are an eye witness, you will get your day to tell the truth in court. If not, then you are just guessing about the facts third hand like the rest of us.
There are some facts that are undisputable, however. For instance, Abortionist Powell typically kills 20 people a day at that clinic and no one gets arrested. On the other hand, those protesting those murders get arrested. That my friend, is the definition of insanity.
More Garland gestapo nonsense. First off, the FACE act is strictly designed to chill protest rights at kill mills. Second, the response from “multiple agencies” is grossly unneeded and was clearly designed to embarrass and intimidate others. Sure, charge the guy with assault. This is nuts.
How would this be different from prolife folks being accosted?
Years ago I was praying with members of our church outide a clinic that performed feticides and a man repeatedly threatened us with a large pair of scissors. He would come right up close to us and make stabbing motions. The police said because he didn’t actually stab us there was nothing they could do.
From what you have set forth, the man is guilty of an assault that is against the law, so the police either directly lied to you (likely) or were ignorant of the law (unlikely). In basic legalese, one definition of assault is a seriously threatening action to do unjust physical harm to another, such as in your circumstances. Battery is the actual physical act of unjustly harming another. In common everyday language, the word ‘assault’ is used for physical attacks on people, and so the legal distinction between assault and battery is unknown to many, but not to the police. Perhaps the police deemed that their presence was enough to prevent further incident, but if so, this does not excuse them from wrongly advising you that they could not intervene when anyone is confronted by a legally defined assault against them.
Supplement to my response to mrscracker: in some states, battery is simply included in various kinds of assaults such as ‘simple assault’ and ‘aggravated assault’ without a separate offense known as battery.
Nevertheless, the threat to do bodily harm is indeed an actionable assault in all states if it can be inferred from the manner of the threat that a person or persons so threatened reasonably fear for their bodily safety.
Thank you for sharing that Doc. It happened over 3 decades agi and I remember going to court later as a witness but nothing came of it. I believe civil charges had been filed against the man with the scissors.
It was really disturbing because I had a baby in a stroller when we’d been threatened that way.
Such an upside down world we live in. As I see it the praying man was confronting three people, two mothers ready to murder their children as well as the escort who was their accompanying accomplice. The praying man attempts to stop the murder only to be arrested and threatened to jail, parole and fine. To be objective, the article did not mention if there were other witnesses to prove either way. Since he was released by the judge and declines to comment it is further unclear. Sounds like the judge may have not had enough evidence to prove him guilty since he released him which makes me think that the abortion folks may have lied.
As I understand it, the PP escort repeatedly verbally accosted Houck’s minor son. Also, Houck was never charged by police and the escort never showed at the civil trial. Looks like a non-issue until someone decided to go federal with it. And what a criminal show of force from the FEDS.
You have a lot of incorrect information. Take this as somebody very familiar with the case. Unprovoked attack, nothing to do with his son. Don’t want to say more at the time, except you have bad information.
You have false information. No communication at all about son. Volunteer was just trying to escort women in the building. Also wrong about the trial information. Get better sources. Lots more I could say since I know all the details of the case, but the now 73 year old man doesn’t need to be assaulted again, so please stop spreading false information and victim shaming.
Okay, Bob. Why can’t you say more? Looks like a cop-out. You wouldn’t actually be the “escort” (BL), would you?
In any case, since Mr. Houck has been doing his peaceful protests for years without incident, why should we believe your story that he was not provoked, and that it did not involve his son? According to you, Houck simply lost his cool for the first time and decided to attack a 73-year-old man. Also, what does the age of the “escort” have to do with anything, and how do you know how hold he (or perhaps you) are? Did Mr. Houck know the “escort’s” age, and that’s another reason why you claim he shoved him? Or are you trying to drum up bogus sympathy for such an “escort” because of his age?
Sorry, Bob. If you can’t elaborate on your remarks with supporting evidence or you simply choose not to do so, your assurances of knowing more about the case is just hearsay on your part that nobody should accept based only on your unconvincing “I know more than you, but I won’t say what” about the case.
By the way, was the case thrown out or dismissed in a civil court? If so, why did this occur if your claims are correct?
If you really had information about what happened instead of only denying what has been reported you could inform us. You are essentially claiming it was an unprovoked attack. But what is your source for that?
Even if I took your word for it that “Lots more I could say since I know all the details of the case,” and I don’t, it wouldn’t matter. It could not justify an early-morning armed raid by a couple dozen agents, screaming and pounding at the door.
How is it that a man who was in a small shoving match could get ten years in prison when those who are murdering people and doing drug deals that kill people on the streets of N.Y, Chicago and in California are all being let back out on to the streets? This is insanity. You only get out if you are a danger to society and are left in prison if you try to defend the unborn. It won’t be long before the Warning comes.
It’s not a shoving match when one person shoves another to the ground while the other doesn’t lay a finger on them. It’s an assault, and given where the assault happened and under the circumstances, it is a more serious offense. Mark should have kept his hands to himself.
Again, Bob, your writing suggests that you may indeed be the ghoulish “escort” identified as BL. You write not as a witness, but one directly involved. For instance, the following are a bit peculiar in your comments spread over a couple of posts:
Bob: “the now 73 year old man doesn’t need….”
Who would emphasize a person’s age change if not the person himself? If you were merely a witness, you would only refer to his age at the time of the incident, which was apparently 72.
A witness probably wouldn’t mention the possible future impact of a rhetorical assault on another person, but a person whining about such being possibly visited upon himself would write in this manner…just as you have done.
And a witness probably wouldn’t write that “Mark should have kept his hands to himself,” but a person shoved by Mr. Houck would write in this manner.
Also, what’s with the first name basis?
Since you work/volunteer for your fellow ghouls of Planned Parenthood, I suspect that Mr. Houck has been known and detested by you et al., and so this whole thing smacks of a set-up on your part with the help of the compliant DOJ to try to stop Mr. Houck from saving lives that you enjoy helping others murder.
Lastly, the cry of “victim shaming” also suggests you are upset with being called out as a ghoul who helps women murder their babies. Anyone who helps a woman murder her unborn child brings shame upon themselves regardless of whether or not they are called out for their shameful behavior.
That’s correct. Regardless of the specifics, if you take a 20,000 foot view of the situation you see the clear discrepancy in the way justice is carried out. Even if the defendant is guilty of assault and wasn’t defending his son, he could’ve been picked up without incident by his local Sheriff’s Dept. Instead, he and his family were SWATted. I mean, you’d swear it was Summer 2020 and the Houcks were in the act of assaulting folks, looting, and burning down buildings or something (hypothetically of course) the way the police made contact with them. Regardless of assault vs self defense) then the way he was apprehended wasn’t about him and the level of risk he posed. No, it was a show of force for the rest of us.
Meant: “Regardless of assault vs self defense, the way he was apprehended wasn’t about him and the level of risk he posed.”
… and we should accept your “account of events” at face value? I guess this is another of those anonymous sources named “Bob”. Keep in mind that if you are an eye witness, you will get your day to tell the truth in court. If not, then you are just guessing about the facts third hand like the rest of us.
There are some facts that are undisputable, however. For instance, Abortionist Powell typically kills 20 people a day at that clinic and no one gets arrested. On the other hand, those protesting those murders get arrested. That my friend, is the definition of insanity.
More Garland gestapo nonsense. First off, the FACE act is strictly designed to chill protest rights at kill mills. Second, the response from “multiple agencies” is grossly unneeded and was clearly designed to embarrass and intimidate others. Sure, charge the guy with assault. This is nuts.